Abstract

The Author's case is that Santi Romano in his "Ordinamento giuridico" did not severe the concept of law from the monopoly of the State. Indeed one thing is to take that the continuity existing among social needs-necessity-institutions-multiple sets of rules leads to a scientific notion of law. And the other is to take that these sets of rules - be embryonic or consolidated - are mutually open, i.e. that the force of the formers stands as such also in the latters. This issue is particularly topical because of the increasing strength of various movements - that Santi Romano would consider as institutions - including those in favor of "no vax" , "Di Bella therapy", "stamina therapy", euthanasia and surrogate motherhood. It is a matter of fact that all these movements are used to apply rules they would like be as a part of State legal order. The issue is raised by the fact that if it is true that in Santi Romano understanding the State has the authority to deny relevance to those sets of rules - which are other from itself - e.g. those rules established by mafia -, this does not impede that from a scientific point of view these latters keep their nature of law. In the meantime it was Santi Romano who - just in a note he added to the edition of his "Ordinamento giuridico" issued in 1946 - wrote precisely that rules which belong to an order that is other from the State one may be applicable within this just under the condition that the State itself acknowledge them explicitly. This means that the objective and scientific nature of whatever rule is not enough granting it a legal status.